Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 20:34 UTC
Legal The Obama administration:

After extensive consultations with the agencies of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group, as well as other interested agencies and persons, I have decided to disapprove the USITC's determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation.

Lots of talk about SEPs and FRAND in Obama's decree, which means that the Obama administration contradicts everything the ITC has said. To freshen your memory, the ITC ruled that not only was the patent in question not a standard essential patent, but Samsung's offer was actually proper FRAND:

Additionally, the Commission found that there were still disputed issues concerning the patent at issue was even actually essential to the standard (and therefore whether a FRAND or disclosure obligation applied at all).

[...]

The Commission analyzed the history of negotiations between Apple and Samsung (this portion is heavily redacted) to see if Apple showed that Samsung failed to negotiate “in good faith,” and found that Apple failed to do so. Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments.

In other words, the Obama administration threw out virtually everything the ITC has said in order to protect Apple. This effectively means that American companies can infringe on non-American companies' (standard essential) patents all they want, because the president will simply step in if they try to fight back.

So, I was wrong. I expected the Obama administration to be impartial and not give such a huge slap in the face of the ITC - as cynical as I usually am, I can still be naive. Protectionism is more important to the POTUS.

Permalink for comment 568807
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Real patent hardball: Qualcomm CDMA
by jphamlore on Sat 3rd Aug 2013 21:21 UTC
jphamlore
Member since:
2011-02-15

You want real patent hardball, that was Qualcomm versus everyone else for Qualcomm's CDMA patents. Here's what it meant for Nokia:

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releases/2007/04/05/qualcomm-files-ar...

By not having any idea of history, the tech press misses the same exact thing happening right in front of its noses. Because China noticed what an awesome thing it was to have a major telecom using a standard no one else was using and whose IP could be use to bludgeon other country's companies into cross-licensing or even surrendering their IP.

The Chinese could hardly be blamed for emulating the exact same strategy the US used with Qualcomm / CDMA / Verizon. It's worked out great for China having TD-SCDMA on China Mobile to bludgeon everyone else including Qualcomm to cross-license their IP and establish research labs in China employing thousands of engineers.

But then that would lead to awkward questions wouldn't it for European leaders about whether they made the wrong choice to have a too open standard in GSM so that everyone else could have compatibility and be able to sell in Europe whereas European companies would be bullied in the US and Chinese markets into surrendering IP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/24qualcomm.html

"As part of the settlement, Nokia said it had agreed to withdraw a complaint it made to the European Commission against Qualcomm and assign ownership of a number of patents to Qualcomm."

Reply Score: 2